ARATON (1/13/14): If you had the Patriots scoring six touchdowns without Tom Brady throwing for any in a 43-22 thrashing of the Indianapolis Colts on Saturday night, there’s a handicapping job waiting for you somewhere...

In a New England downpour, a hard reign fell on Andrew Luck and the Colts at Gillette Stadium. Luck was intercepted by the suspect Patriots defense as many times as Blount—an undrafted fourth-year running back—crossed the goal line while running for 166 yards, or 15 more than he gained last season in Tampa.

Why was Saturday evening’s game played “in a New England downpour?” Because after our recent Arctic freeze, temperatures have been much higher than normal on the East Coast in the past several days.

Well, the Big Stupid might also conclude Tom Brady beat the Colts even though he did not throw a single touchdown pass.The Patriots, with a far superior offensive line, rushed for all six of their scores.

He did it by overturning the theory that the Patriots can only win in the snow because Brady can then throw TD passes while the defense is hampered by weather conditions. In this game the Patriots won because the other teams allowed interceptions, despite Brady not completing any TD passes. So, he confounded the climate-based theories about why the Patriots are a successful team.

This is a post about football, not global warming (aside from the unusually warm, rainy weather during the game).

You can choose to be part of the Big Stoopid or oppose it. The first step is to think before commenting.

Gee, I didn't even know of the theory that the Patriots could only win in the snow. I would think there would be a lot of evidence to the contrary, but thankfully Bob is here to set the record straight.

Spot on parody. Leave it to a Boston sports fan to go over the top with ridiculous "hometown" platitudes. When their sports team wins it's supposedly for all of mankind. They really are that full of themselves.

There's no doubt that the globe has warmed and that anthropogenic gases have a warming impact, However, the key question is the magnitude of that impact. The actual rate of warming since 1979 has been less than half as fast as the UN IPCC says it should be. And, there's been essentially no warming at all since 1997 or so.

Mirroring those who wrongly claim that a cold spell proves the world isn't warming are those on the other side who claim that a warm spell or a hurricane proves that that climate change is taking place.

Then there are those who point to the shrinking area of Arctic ice without mentioning that the area of Antarctic ice has expanded as much as Arctic ice has shrunk. Today, the total area of global sea-ice is slightly larger than the long-term average, but climate change worriers won't tell you that fact.

Thanks for that link Anon. It illustrates the kind of deceptive cherry-picking done by the warmist side. That article says nothing about the total extent of Antarctic ice. By focusing on one piece of it, the article gives the impression that all Antarctic ice is shrinking. BTW the article doesn't show actual data even for the piece if addresses. The article refers to Gael Durand's prediction. I believe I've seen other experts whose predictions differ, although I don't have a link handy.

To see the total Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, go to http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/01/13/3924653.htm This site shows a plethora of exhibits. The very first one shows global sea ice extent. The red line at the bottom is slightly above the long term average, as you can see.

BTW the article you linked to refers to a glacier on land. My comment and my link are about sea ice. Although one might imagine that glaciers and sea ice would change in the same direction, that's not necessarily the case.

Huh? This link precisely confirms what I wrote, namely "the article doesn't show actual data even for the piece [of Antarctica] it addresses. The article refers to Gael Durand's prediction."

Incidentally, Anon 6:03 PM, if you go to this google page , you can that lots of publications have reported Antarctic sea ice growing to record extent, including such liberal organs as WaPo and the Guardian. Anon 6:03 PM, do you want to rescind your comment?

PS to AnonymousJanuary 13, 2014 at 8:27 PM: sorry you were offended by the term "warmist". I didn't mean to offend. I meant it to refer to those who believe with a high degree of confidence that the earth is warming, that anthropogenic emissions are the primary cause of this warming, and that the warming will be catastrophic. What label would you prefer for this group of people?

We can't use the word "climatologist" to mean people who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC), because some climatologists believe there are fundamental uncertainties

There is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted….The World Meteorological Organization of the United Nations [conference]...in the early nineteen-seventies… focused on just two [uncertainties]. The first concerned an inability to simulate the amount and character of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds are important because they govern the balance between solar heating and infrared cooling of the planet, and thereby are a control of Earth’s temperature. The second concerned an inability to forecast the behaviour of oceans. Oceans are important because they are the main reservoirs of heat in the climate system. They have internal, more-or-less random, fluctuations on all sorts of time-scales ranging from years through to centuries. These fluctuations cause changes in ocean surface temperature that in turn affect Earth’s overall climate.

The situation hasn’t changed all that much in the decades since the conference....

Some climatologists believe in CACC. Some non-climatologists believe in CACC. Some climatologists are uncertain about CACC or disbelieve it. Therefore the word "climatologist" isn't identical with the set of people who believe in CACC.

brady marries a model who, believe it or not, makes or made more money than him. the dominant are attracted to the dominant, not just mate-wise but socially generally. this seems to be human nature and the genesis of aristocracy.

we as a putative democracy need to artificially do whatever we can to place roadblocks to these successful social climbers to minimize their control of the levers of power in this country.

we need mentally to develop a revulsion, a disgust for these people, and by association, those who we see idolizing or gravitating to them.

the solution to many of our countries ills is found between our ears. we should want to vomit when we hear someone has gone to harvard or yale, etc. or if they have any cinematic celebrity or association to any form of royalty, past or present.

they are for their gang of aristocrats, not the vast majority of us. they are the enemy within.